---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      name:  <unnamed>
       log:  C:\Dropbox\bavarian affair\merged data\replication\tables\replication_SMD.
> log
  log type:  text
 opened on:  20 Nov 2015, 19:24:34

. 
. 
. ********************************************************************************
. *Table 1: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares
. ********************************************************************************
. 
. use tables\aggregate_treat.dta, clear

. 
. xtset nr year
       panel variable:  nr (strongly balanced)
        time variable:  year, 2008 to 2013, but with gaps
                delta:  1 unit

. fvset base 2008 year

. 
. global c = "population employment_share immigrant_share influx  buildings farmers pc_
> tax pc_debt" // candidate level controls

. global g = "incumbency leg local_committee kabinett bezirksvorsitz01 parteiamt affair
> _noncsu opp_leader danube13" // district level controls

. 
. eststo clear

. 
. quietly eststo mod1: xtreg csu_fv affair i.year##i.region2 $c $g i.year if year>=2008
> , cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod2: xtreg csu_fv affair_cont  i.year##i.region2 i.year $c $g if year
> >=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod3: xtreg csu_fv affair_run affair_norun  i.year##i.region2 i.year $
> c $g if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod4: xtreg csu_fv affair_run_cont affair_norun_cont  i.year##i.region
> 2 i.year $c $g if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. 
. sum csu_fv if affair==0 & year==2013

    Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
      csu_fv |         67    46.81946    6.412458   32.33378   63.08179

. estadd scalar control_mean2013 = r(mean) : mod1 mod2 mod3 mod4

. 
. esttab mod1 mod2 mod3 mod4, replace compress stats(N control_mean2013) b(2) se(2) sta
> r(* 0.05) label indicate("Candidate and district controls = $c $g danube13 " "Regiona
> l trends = *region*") order(*affair* danube* *year* $c) drop( *2008.year*) ///
> rename(affair_cont affair affair_norun_cont affair_norun affair_run_cont affair_run) 
> /// 
> title(Table 1: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares) 
> ///
> note("Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standar
> d errors, clustered by district, in parentheses. The treatment indicator is binary (M
> odels 1, 3) or continuous (Models 2, 4). We observe 23 implicated districts, of which
>  14 are with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control variables included are population density (i
> n 1000s), share of employed population (subject to social insurance contributions), i
> mmigrant share, in-migration (in 1000s), building completions (in 1000s), farms (in 1
> 000s), per capita communal tax (in Euro), per capita communal debt (in Euro), CSU can
> didate member of parliament, number of legislative periods of candidate, candidate lo
> cal committee member, candidate member of government, candidate regional party leader
> , candidate leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of
>  opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions allow
>  for separate regional trends in northern Bavaria.") ///
> mtitles("binary treat." "cont. treat." "binary treat." "cont. treat.") ///
> collabels("First vote",lhs(Dep. var.: CSU vote shares))

Table 1: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares
------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4) 
                      bi..  co.. tr~.       bi..  co.. tr~. 
Dep. var.: CSU~s First v~e  First v~e  First v~e  First v~e 
------------------------------------------------------------
CSU affair ~2013     -2.68*     -3.36*                      
                    (1.13)     (1.00)                       

Running CSU~2013                           -2.75      -4.34*
                                          (1.39)     (1.40) 

Stepdown CS~2013                           -2.38*     -2.34*
                                          (1.12)     (0.62) 

Year=2013             3.05*      2.64*      2.97*      2.73*
                    (0.97)     (0.95)     (0.96)     (0.95) 

Constant             45.75*     50.02*     46.40*     55.49*
                   (14.51)    (13.45)    (14.55)    (13.44) 

Candidate and ~s       Yes        Yes        Yes        Yes 

Regional trends        Yes        Yes        Yes        Yes 
------------------------------------------------------------
N                   180.00     180.00     180.00     180.00 
control_mean2013     46.82      46.82      46.82      46.82 
------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standard errors
> , clustered by district, in parentheses. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1,
>  3) or continuous (Models 2, 4). We observe 23 implicated districts, of which 14 are 
> with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control variables included are population density (in 1000s)
> , share of employed population (subject to social insurance contributions), immigrant
>  share, in-migration (in 1000s), building completions (in 1000s), farms (in 1000s), p
> er capita communal tax (in Euro), per capita communal debt (in Euro), CSU candidate m
> ember of parliament, number of legislative periods of candidate, candidate local comm
> ittee member, candidate member of government, candidate regional party leader, candid
> ate leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of opposit
> ion candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions allow for sep
> arate regional trends in northern Bavaria.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Table 2: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of CSU First and Sec
> ond Vote Shares (Diff-in-Tiers)
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. 
. use tables\aggregate_treat.dta, clear

. 
. fvset base 2008 year

. fvset base 0 leg

. 
. global h = "incumbency leg danube13 local_committee kabinett bezirksvorsitz01 parteia
> mt  affair_noncsu opp_leader cand_female titel cand_age indiff2010" 

. 
. eststo clear

. 
. quietly eststo mod1: reg diff_tiers affair_run   $h  i.region   if year>=2013 & inc =
> = 1,  r

. quietly eststo mod2: reg diff_tiers affair_run   $h  i.region   if year>=2013 ,  r

. quietly eststo mod3: reg diff_tiers c.affair_run_cont  $h  i.region  if year>=2013 & 
> inc == 1,  r

. quietly eststo mod4: reg diff_tiers c.affair_run_cont  $h  i.region  if year>=2013 , 
>  r

. 
. esttab mod* , append b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05) label compress  order(*affair*  danube* 
> ) indicate( "Controls for candidate quality and indifference= *leg* cand_female titel
>  incumbency* $h" "Controls for region = *region*" ) ///
> rename(affair_run_cont affair_run) /// 
> title("Table 2: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of CSU First a
> nd Second Vote Shares") ///
> note("Note: Regression of 2013 difference of first and second vote share of CSU (at d
> istrict level), with robust standard errors in parentheses. For Model 1 and 3, sample
>  draws on 2013 incumbents only. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2) or co
> ntinuous (Models 3, 4). We observe 14 districts with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control vari
> ables for candidate quality include CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet 
> member, regional party leader, leading party functionary, opposition party leader in 
> district, affair of opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district
> , age (in years), dummies for female, academic title and a measure for district level
>  aggregate indifference. Regressions as well include dummies for the OLPR districts (
> regions) in Bavaria.") ///
> mtitles("binary treat." "binary treat." "cont. treat." "cont. treat.") ///
> collabels("Diff-in-tiers",lhs(Dep. var.: Diff. in CSU first and second vote sh.))

Table 2: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of CSU First and Second
>  Vote Shares
------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4) 
                      bi..       bi..  co.. tr~.  co.. tr~. 
Dep. var.: Dif~e Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s 
------------------------------------------------------------
Running CSU~2013     -2.73*     -1.88      -3.14*     -3.01*
                    (1.34)     (1.15)     (0.76)     (0.81) 

Constant              4.17      -3.57       3.68      -3.71 
                    (6.66)     (5.23)     (6.64)     (5.18) 

Controls for c~a       Yes        Yes        Yes        Yes 

Controls for r~n       Yes        Yes        Yes        Yes 
------------------------------------------------------------
Observations            59         90         59         90 
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Regression of 2013 difference of first and second vote share of CSU (at district 
> level), with robust standard errors in parentheses. For Model 1 and 3, sample draws o
> n 2013 incumbents only. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2) or continuous
>  (Models 3, 4). We observe 14 districts with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control variables fo
> r candidate quality include CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet member, 
> regional party leader, leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district
> , affair of opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district, age (i
> n years), dummies for female, academic title and a measure for district level aggrega
> te indifference. Regressions as well include dummies for the OLPR districts (regions)
>  in Bavaria.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A2: Placebo Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Pre-Treatme
> nt Effect/Trend in CSU First Vote Shares/ Difference-in-Tiers
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. 
. use tables\aggregate_placebo.dta

. 
. xtset nr year, delta(5)
       panel variable:  nr (strongly balanced)
        time variable:  year, 2003 to 2008
                delta:  5 units

. fvset base 2003 year

. 
. eststo clear

. 
. quietly eststo: xtreg csu_fv f_affair  i.year, cluster(nr) fe

. quietly eststo: xtreg csu_fv f_affair  i.year##i.region2, cluster(nr) fe

. quietly eststo: xtreg csu_fv f_affair_run f_affair_norun  i.year, cluster(nr) fe

. quietly eststo: xtreg csu_fv f_affair_run f_affair_norun  i.year##i.region2, cluster(
> nr) fe

. quietly eststo: reg diff_tiers f_affair_run  if year==2008 & inc2==1 , r

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers f_affair_run  i.year if inc==1 , cluster(nr) fe

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers f_affair_run  i.year##i.region if inc==1 , cluster(n
> r) fe

. 
. esttab , compress b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05) order(*affair*)  drop(2003.year) label indi
> cate("Regional trends = *region*") /// 
> title("Table A2: Placebo Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Pre-Treatment Effect/T
> rend in CSU First Vote Shares/Difference-in-Tiers") ///
> note("Note: Model 1-4, 6-7: Fixed-effects regression on 2003-2008 CSU vote shares (Mo
> del 1 to 4 with dependent variable first vote share and Model 6 and 7 with difference
>  in first and second vote shares) with robust standard errors, clustered by district,
>  in parentheses. Model 6 and 7 draw on 2008 incumbents that ran in 2003 as well. Regr
> essions that allow for separate regional trends in northern Bavaria/OLPR districts (M
> odel 7) are indicated. Model 5: OLS regression with robust standard errors on the dif
> ference in 2008 CSU first and second vote shares in districts with 2013 incumbents on
> ly.") ///
> collabels("" ,lhs(Dep. var.: CSU vote shares))

Table A2: Placebo Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Pre-Treatment Effect/Trend in C
> SU First Vote Shares/Difference-in-Tiers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4)        (5)        (6)      
>   (7) 
                 Distric~h  Distric~h  Distric~h  Distric~h  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff
> -in~s 
Dep. var.: CSU~s                                                                       
>       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
Affair MP i~2013      0.77      -0.03                                                  
>       
                    (1.01)     (0.99)                                                  
>       

Running aff~2013                            0.71       0.62      -0.01       0.15      
>  0.52 
                                          (1.25)     (1.23)     (1.10)     (1.22)     (
> 1.30) 

Stepdown af~2013                            0.81      -0.51                            
>       
                                          (1.21)     (1.28)                            
>       

Year=2008           -16.96*    -14.35*    -16.96*    -14.37*                 1.10*     
>  0.12 
                    (0.57)     (0.76)     (0.56)     (0.75)                (0.52)     (
> 0.70) 

Constant             59.51*     59.51*     59.51*     59.51*     -1.38*     -2.37*     
> -2.37*
                    (0.24)     (0.21)     (0.24)     (0.21)     (0.37)     (0.24)     (
> 0.23) 

Regional trends         No        Yes         No        Yes         No         No      
>   Yes 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
Observations           180        180        180        180         59        110      
>   110 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
Note: Model 1-4, 6-7: Fixed-effects regression on 2003-2008 CSU vote shares (Model 1 to
>  4 with dependent variable first vote share and Model 6 and 7 with difference in firs
> t and second vote shares) with robust standard errors, clustered by district, in pare
> ntheses. Model 6 and 7 draw on 2008 incumbents that ran in 2003 as well. Regressions 
> that allow for separate regional trends in northern Bavaria/OLPR districts (Model 7) 
> are indicated. Model 5: OLS regression with robust standard errors on the difference 
> in 2008 CSU first and second vote shares in districts with 2013 incumbents only.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A3: 2013 Summary Statistics for District Level Controls
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. use tables\aggregate_treat.dta, clear

. 
. tab region, gen(region_dum)

  Regional OLPR districts |      Freq.     Percent        Cum.
--------------------------+-----------------------------------
OLPR ballot Mittelfranken |         24       13.33       13.33
 OLPR ballot Niederbayern |         18       10.00       23.33
   OLPR ballot Oberbayern |         60       33.33       56.67
  OLPR ballot Oberfranken |         16        8.89       65.56
    OLPR ballot Oberpfalz |         16        8.89       74.44
     OLPR ballot Schwaben |         26       14.44       88.89
 OLPR ballot Unterfranken |         20       11.11      100.00
--------------------------+-----------------------------------
                    Total |        180      100.00

. 
. eststo clear

. eststo allcand: estpost ttest population employment_share immigrant_share influx  bui
> ldings farmers pc_tax pc_debt incumbency danube  opp_leader affair_noncsu local_commi
> ttee kabinett leg bezirksvorsitz01 parteiamt indiff2010  region_dum1 if year==2013, b
> y(affair) 

             |      e(b)   e(count)      e(se)       e(t)    e(df_t)     e(p_l) 
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------
  population |  .3901116         90   .3686006   1.058359         88   .8536057 
employment~e |  4.956467         90   2.893431   1.713007         88   .9548837 
immigrant_~e |  2.402661         90   1.311366   1.832182         88   .9648465 
      influx |  1.622611         90   .6705116    2.41996         88   .9912105 
   buildings |  .0784536         90   .0486671   1.612047         88   .9447337 
     farmers | -.1099163         90    .181508  -.6055728         88   .2731786 
      pc_tax |  .1902998         90    .097601   1.949772         88   .9728064 
     pc_debt |  .0727554         90   .1215658   .5984853         88   .7244732 
  incumbency |  .0045425         90   .1161343   .0391142         88    .515556 
    danube13 |  .2550292         90   .0997302    2.55719         88   .9938675 
  opp_leader | -.0136275         90   .0438469  -.3107973         88   .3783448 
affair_non~u |  .1044776         90   .0645009   1.619785         88   .9455716 
local_comm~e | -.1252433         90    .098841  -1.267119         88   .1042278 
    kabinett |  -.156392         90   .0842831  -1.855556         88   .0334322 
         leg | -.5100584         90   .3512946  -1.451939         88   .0750373 
bezirksvo~01 |  -.027255         90   .0608946   -.447577         88   .3277792 
   parteiamt | -.0136275         90   .0438469  -.3107973         88   .3783448 
  indiff2010 |  .0008341         90   .0045119   .1848596         88   .5731178 
 region_dum1 |  .0038936         90   .0830787   .0468661         88   .5186369 

             |      e(p)     e(p_u)     e(N_1)    e(mu_1)     e(N_2)    e(mu_2) 
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------
  population |  .2927885   .1463943         67   .8949454         23   .5048338 
employment~e |  .0902326   .0451163         67    39.2833         23   34.32683 
immigrant_~e |  .0703069   .0351535         67   9.141791         23    6.73913 
      influx |  .0175789   .0087895         67    9.80609         23   8.183478 
   buildings |  .1105327   .0552663         67   .4771493         23   .3986957 
     farmers |  .5463571   .7268214         67   1.059388         23   1.169304 
      pc_tax |  .0543872   .0271936         67   1.131343         23   .9410435 
     pc_debt |  .5510536   .2755268         67   .9270597         23   .8543043 
  incumbency |  .9688879    .484444         67   .6567164         23   .6521739 
    danube13 |  .0122651   .0061325         67   .2985075         23   .0434783 
  opp_leader |  .7566897   .6216552         67   .0298507         23   .0434783 
affair_non~u |  .1088568   .0544284         67   .1044776         23          0 
local_comm~e |  .2084557   .8957722         67   .1791045         23   .3043478 
    kabinett |  .0668644   .9665678         67   .1044776         23   .2608696 
         leg |  .1500745   .9249627         67   1.402985         23   1.913043 
bezirksvo~01 |  .6555583   .6722208         67   .0597015         23   .0869565 
   parteiamt |  .7566897   .6216552         67   .0298507         23   .0434783 
  indiff2010 |  .8537645   .4268822         67   .1538115         23   .1529774 
 region_dum1 |  .9627261   .4813631         67   .1343284         23   .1304348 

. eststo running: estpost ttest population employment_share immigrant_share influx  bui
> ldings farmers pc_tax pc_debt incumbency danube  opp_leader affair_noncsu local_commi
> ttee kabinett leg bezirksvorsitz01 parteiamt indiff2010  region_dum1 if year==2013, b
> y(affair_run) 

             |      e(b)   e(count)      e(se)       e(t)    e(df_t)     e(p_l) 
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------
  population |  .0755043         90   .4463365   .1691645         88   .5669722 
employment~e |   1.78488         90   3.534582   .5049764         88   .6925811 
immigrant_~e |  .5065789         90   1.607084   .3152162         88   .6233281 
      influx |  1.068742         90   .8255247   1.294622         88   .9005813 
   buildings |  .0342914         90   .0593147    .578126         88   .7176722 
     farmers | -.0149135         90   .2188859  -.0681338         88   .4729168 
      pc_tax |  .1357575         90   .1190929    1.13993         88   .8712957 
     pc_debt | -.0062143         90   .1465952  -.0423908         88   .4831416 
  incumbency | -.4078947         90   .1328279  -3.070851         88   .0014197 
    danube13 |  .1917293         90     .12271   1.562459         88   .9391154 
  opp_leader | -.0451128         90   .0525774  -.8580263         88   .1966044 
affair_non~u |  .0921053         90   .0781584   1.178443         88   .8791016 
local_comm~e | -.2575188         90   .1168498  -2.203844         88   .0150728 
    kabinett | -.3364662         90   .0969759  -3.469587         88   .0004047 
         leg | -1.736842         90   .3856612  -4.503544         88   .0000102 
bezirksvo~01 | -.0902256         90   .0727342  -1.240483         88    .109047 
   parteiamt | -.0451128         90   .0525774  -.8580263         88   .1966044 
  indiff2010 |  .0090774         90    .005344   1.698605         88   .9535366 
 region_dum1 |  .1578947         90    .098556   1.602082         88   .9436394 

             |      e(p)     e(p_u)     e(N_1)    e(mu_1)     e(N_2)    e(mu_2) 
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------
  population |  .8660555   .4330278         76   .8069953         14    .731491 
employment~e |  .6148377   .3074189         76   38.29429         14   36.50941 
immigrant_~e |  .7533438   .3766719         76   8.606579         14        8.1 
      influx |  .1988374   .0994187         76   9.557671         14   8.488929 
   buildings |  .5646556   .2823278         76   .4624342         14   .4281429 
     farmers |  .9458337   .5270832         76   1.085158         14   1.100071 
      pc_tax |  .2574087   .1287043         76   1.103829         14   .9680714 
     pc_debt |  .9662832   .5168584         76      .9075         14   .9137143 
  incumbency |  .0028393   .9985803         76   .5921053         14          1 
    danube13 |  .1217692   .0608846         76   .2631579         14   .0714286 
  opp_leader |  .3932089   .8033956         76   .0263158         14   .0714286 
affair_non~u |  .2417968   .1208984         76   .0921053         14          0 
local_comm~e |  .0301456   .9849272         76   .1710526         14   .4285714 
    kabinett |  .0008094   .9995953         76   .0921053         14   .4285714 
         leg |  .0000204   .9999898         76   1.263158         14          3 
bezirksvo~01 |   .218094    .890953         76   .0526316         14   .1428571 
   parteiamt |  .3932089   .8033956         76   .0263158         14   .0714286 
  indiff2010 |  .0929268   .0464634         76   .1550103         14    .145933 
 region_dum1 |  .1127212   .0563606         76   .1578947         14          0 

. 
. esttab allcand running, label compress star(* 0.05 ) /// 
> cells("mu_1(fmt(%12.2f) label(Control)) mu_2(fmt(%12.2f) label(Treated)) b(fmt(%12.2f
> ) star label(Diff-In-2013-Means))" "mean mean se(par fmt(2))" ". . .") ///
> title("2013 Summary Statistics for District Level and Candidate Quality Controls") //
> /
> note("Note: Comparison of 2013 DID control variables (mean and mean difference with s
> tandard errors in parantheses) for all affair districts vs. rest (columns 1-3) and ru
> nning affair candidate districts vs. rest (columns 4-6).")

2013 Summary Statistics for District Level and Candidate Quality Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)                            (2)                     
                                                                              
                 Control~n Treated~n Diff-In~e  Control~n Treated~n Diff-In~e 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pop. density          0.89      0.50      0.39       0.81      0.73      0.08 
                                        (0.37)                         (0.45) 
                                                                              
Employed .. sh~e     39.28     34.33      4.96      38.29     36.51      1.78 
                                        (2.89)                         (3.53) 
                                                                              
Immigrant share       9.14      6.74      2.40       8.61      8.10      0.51 
                                        (1.31)                         (1.61) 
                                                                              
In-migration          9.81      8.18      1.62*      9.56      8.49      1.07 
                                        (0.67)                         (0.83) 
                                                                              
Buildings             0.48      0.40      0.08       0.46      0.43      0.03 
                                        (0.05)                         (0.06) 
                                                                              
Farms                 1.06      1.17     -0.11       1.09      1.10     -0.01 
                                        (0.18)                         (0.22) 
                                                                              
Communal pc tax       1.13      0.94      0.19       1.10      0.97      0.14 
                                        (0.10)                         (0.12) 
                                                                              
Communal pc debt      0.93      0.85      0.07       0.91      0.91     -0.01 
                                        (0.12)                         (0.15) 
                                                                              
Incumbent             0.66      0.65      0.00       0.59      1.00     -0.41*
                                        (0.12)                         (0.13) 
                                                                              
Floods in dist~t      0.30      0.04      0.26*      0.26      0.07      0.19 
                                        (0.10)                         (0.12) 
                                                                              
Opp. party lea~t      0.03      0.04     -0.01       0.03      0.07     -0.05 
                                        (0.04)                         (0.05) 
                                                                              
Scandal opposi~       0.10      0.00      0.10       0.09      0.00      0.09 
                                        (0.06)                         (0.08) 
                                                                              
Local interest~e      0.18      0.30     -0.13       0.17      0.43     -0.26*
                                        (0.10)                         (0.12) 
                                                                              
Cabinet member        0.10      0.26     -0.16       0.09      0.43     -0.34*
                                        (0.08)                         (0.10) 
                                                                              
No. of leg. pe~s      1.40      1.91     -0.51       1.26      3.00     -1.74*
                                        (0.35)                         (0.39) 
                                                                              
Regional party~r      0.06      0.09     -0.03       0.05      0.14     -0.09 
                                        (0.06)                         (0.07) 
                                                                              
Party function~y      0.03      0.04     -0.01       0.03      0.07     -0.05 
                                        (0.04)                         (0.05) 
                                                                              
District level~e      0.15      0.15      0.00       0.16      0.15      0.01 
                                        (0.00)                         (0.01) 
                                                                              
region==OLPR b~e      0.13      0.13      0.00       0.16      0.00      0.16 
                                        (0.08)                         (0.10) 
                                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations            90                             90                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Comparison of 2013 DID control variables (mean and mean difference with standard 
> errors in parantheses) for all affair districts vs. rest (columns 1-3) and running af
> fair candidate districts vs. rest (columns 4-6).

. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A5: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First 
> Vote Shares - Display of All Coefficients of Table 1 and Additional Models
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. 
. use tables\aggregate_treat.dta, clear

. 
. xtset nr year
       panel variable:  nr (strongly balanced)
        time variable:  year, 2008 to 2013, but with gaps
                delta:  1 unit

. fvset base 2008 year

. 
. eststo clear

. 
. quietly eststo app1: xtreg csu_fv affair  i.year if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe

. quietly eststo app2: xtreg csu_fv affair i.year $c $g danube13 i.year if year>=2008, 
> cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod1: xtreg csu_fv affair i.year##i.region2 $c $g danube13 i.year if y
> ear>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod2: xtreg csu_fv affair_cont  i.year##i.region2 i.year $c $g danube1
> 3 if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod3: xtreg csu_fv affair_run affair_norun  i.year##i.region2 i.year $
> c $g danube13 if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. quietly eststo mod4: xtreg csu_fv affair_run_cont affair_norun_cont  i.year##i.region
> 2 i.year $c $g danube13 if year>=2008, cluster(nr) fe 

. 
. sum csu_fv if affair==0 & year==2013

    Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
      csu_fv |         67    46.81946    6.412458   32.33378   63.08179

. estadd scalar control_mean2013 = r(mean) : app1 app2 mod1 mod2 mod3 mod4

. 
. esttab mod1 mod2 mod3 mod4 app* , append compress stats(N control_mean2013) b(2) se(2
> ) star(* 0.05)  label order(affair affair_run affair_norun danube13 $c $g *year*) dro
> p(2008.*  ?.region2 2013.year#1.region2) ///
> rename(affair_cont affair affair_norun_cont affair_norun affair_run_cont affair_run) 
> /// 
> title(Table A5: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares 
> - Display of All Coefficients of Table X and Additional Models) ///
> note("Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standar
> d errors, clustered by district, in parentheses. The treatment indicator is binary (M
> odels 1, 3) or continuous (Models 2, 4). We observe 23 implicated districts, of which
>  14 are with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control variables included are population density (i
> n 1000s), share of employed population (subject to social insurance contributions), i
> mmigrant share, in-migration (in 1000s), building completions (in 1000s), farms (in 1
> 000s), per capita communal tax (in Euro), per capita communal debt (in Euro), CSU can
> didate member of parliament, number of legislative periods of candidate, candidate lo
> cal committee member, candidate member of government, candidate regional party leader
> , candidate leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of
>  opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions allow
>  for separate regional trends in northern Bavaria.") ///
> mtitles("binary treat." "cont. treat." "binary treat." "cont. treat." "binary treat."
>  "binary treat.") ///
> collabels("First vote",lhs(Dep. var.: CSU vote shares))

Table A5: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares - Displa
> y of All Coefficients of Table X and Additional Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4)        (5)        (6) 
                      bi..  co.. tr~.       bi..  co.. tr~.       bi..       bi.. 
Dep. var.: CSU~s First v~e  First v~e  First v~e  First v~e  First v~e  First v~e 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSU affair ~2013     -2.68*     -3.36*                           -2.11*     -2.92*
                    (1.13)     (1.00)                           (1.05)     (1.12) 

Running CSU~2013                           -2.75      -4.34*                      
                                          (1.39)     (1.40)                       

Stepdown CS~2013                           -2.38*     -2.34*                      
                                          (1.12)     (0.62)                       

Floods in dist~t      1.15       0.99       0.00       0.00                  0.00 
                    (1.06)     (0.94)        (.)        (.)                   (.) 

Floods in dist~t      0.00       0.00                                             
                       (.)        (.)                                             

Pop. density         -4.86      -9.58      -5.67     -10.46                  2.06 
                    (7.44)     (6.86)     (7.51)     (7.15)                (7.24) 

Employed .. sh~e      0.17       0.22       0.16       0.15                  0.18 
                    (0.24)     (0.23)     (0.24)     (0.23)                (0.25) 

Immigrant share       1.37*      1.38*      1.30*      1.19*                 1.66*
                    (0.45)     (0.45)     (0.45)     (0.47)                (0.44) 

In-migration         -0.21      -0.21      -0.17      -0.26                 -0.20 
                    (0.44)     (0.41)     (0.43)     (0.41)                (0.51) 

Buildings            -2.77      -2.57      -2.75      -2.46                 -2.34 
                    (2.04)     (1.99)     (2.03)     (2.03)                (2.22) 

Farms                -5.86*     -5.42*     -5.77*     -5.82*                -5.92*
                    (2.14)     (1.96)     (2.14)     (2.07)                (2.51) 

Communal pc tax      -2.81      -5.10*     -2.38      -4.93*                -2.10 
                    (2.18)     (2.40)     (2.08)     (2.44)                (2.56) 

Communal pc debt     -6.05*     -6.64*     -6.08*     -6.79*                -6.27*
                    (2.53)     (2.37)     (2.56)     (2.45)                (2.84) 

Incumbent             1.16       1.24       1.13       0.95                  1.31 
                    (0.95)     (0.85)     (0.96)     (0.85)                (0.96) 

No. of leg. pe~s     -0.25      -0.32      -0.21      -0.09                 -0.37 
                    (0.46)     (0.41)     (0.45)     (0.37)                (0.43) 

Local interest~e      0.49       0.38       0.49       0.31                  0.49 
                    (0.74)     (0.61)     (0.73)     (0.58)                (0.79) 

Cabinet member        2.43*      3.20*      2.42*      3.14*                 3.05*
                    (1.11)     (1.02)     (1.04)     (0.93)                (1.11) 

Regional party~r      0.62       0.93       0.69       1.32                 -0.04 
                    (1.47)     (1.46)     (1.51)     (1.58)                (1.63) 

Party function~y      1.79      -0.56       2.35       0.23                  1.72 
                    (1.50)     (1.47)     (1.33)     (1.30)                (1.39) 

Scandal opposi~      -1.39      -1.23      -1.46      -1.53                 -0.86 
                    (1.30)     (1.20)     (1.33)     (1.20)                (1.35) 

Opp. party lea~t     -1.32*     -1.27*     -1.37*     -0.96                 -0.83 
                    (0.59)     (0.59)     (0.62)     (0.67)                (0.59) 

Year=2013             3.05*      2.64*      2.97*      2.73*      4.61*      4.17*
                    (0.97)     (0.95)     (0.96)     (0.95)     (0.47)     (1.06) 

Year=2013..           2.41*      3.38*      2.54*      3.49*                      
                    (0.88)     (0.68)     (0.83)     (0.66)                       

Constant             45.75*     50.02*     46.40*     55.49*     42.74*     36.64*
                   (14.51)    (13.45)    (14.55)    (13.44)     (0.21)    (14.31) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N                   180.00     180.00     180.00     180.00     180.00     180.00 
control_mean2013     46.82      46.82      46.82      46.82      46.82      46.82 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standard errors
> , clustered by district, in parentheses. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1,
>  3) or continuous (Models 2, 4). We observe 23 implicated districts, of which 14 are 
> with Բunning affair MPsԮ Control variables included are population density (in 1000s)
> , share of employed population (subject to social insurance contributions), immigrant
>  share, in-migration (in 1000s), building completions (in 1000s), farms (in 1000s), p
> er capita communal tax (in Euro), per capita communal debt (in Euro), CSU candidate m
> ember of parliament, number of legislative periods of candidate, candidate local comm
> ittee member, candidate member of government, candidate regional party leader, candid
> ate leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of opposit
> ion candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions allow for sep
> arate regional trends in northern Bavaria.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A6: Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of
>  CSU First and Second Vote Shares - Display of All Coefficients of Table 2 and Additi
> onal Models
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. * diff-in-tiers, cross-sectional 
. 
. use tables\aggregate_treat.dta, clear

. 
. fvset base 2008 year

. fvset base 0 leg

. 
. global c = "population employment_share immigrant_share influx  buildings farmers pc_
> tax pc_debt "

. global h = "incumbency leg danube13 local_committee kabinett bezirksvorsitz01 parteia
> mt  affair_noncsu opp_leader  cand_female titel  cand_age indiff2010" 

. 
. eststo clear

. quietly eststo app1: reg diff_tiers affair_run   $h  if year>=2013 & inc == 1 ,  r

. quietly eststo tab1: reg diff_tiers affair_run   $h  i.region   if year>=2013 & inc =
> = 1,  r

. quietly eststo tab2: reg diff_tiers affair_run   $h  i.region   if year>=2013 ,  r

. quietly eststo app2: reg diff_tiers c.affair_run_cont  $h  if year>=2013 & inc == 1, 
>  r

. quietly eststo tab3: reg diff_tiers c.affair_run_cont  $h  i.region  if year>=2013 & 
> inc == 1,  r

. quietly eststo tab4: reg diff_tiers c.affair_run_cont  $h  i.region  if year>=2013 , 
>  r

. 
. esttab tab1 tab2 tab3 tab4 app1 app2 , b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05) label compress drop(1.
> region) order(affair_run danube13 incumbency $h *female* *titel* *region*)  ///
> rename(affair_run_cont affair_run) /// 
> title("Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of CSU First an
> d Second Vote Shares - Display of All Coefficients of Table X and Additional Models"}
> ) ///
> note("Note: regression on 2013 difference in first and second vote shares of CSU in d
> istricts with robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample draws on 2013 incumbents 
> only for Model 1 and 3. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2) or continuous
>  (Models 3, 4). We observe 14 districts with running affair MPs. Control variables fo
> r candidate quality include CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet member, 
> regional party leader, leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district
> , affair of opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district, age (i
> n years), dummies for female, academic title and a measure for district level aggrega
> te indifference. Regressions as well include dummies for the OLPR districts (regions)
>  in Bavaria.") ///
> mtitles("binary treat." "binary treat." "cont. treat." "cont. treat." "binary treat."
>  "cont. treat.") ///
> collabels("Diff-in-tiers",lhs(Dep. var.: Dep. var.: Diff. in CSU first and second vot
> e sh.))

Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2013 Differences of CSU First and Second 
> Vote Shares - Display of All Coefficients of Table X and Additional Models }
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4)        (5)        (6) 
                      bi..       bi..  co.. tr~.  co.. tr~.       bi..  co.. tr~. 
Dep. var.: Dep~f Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running CSU~2013     -2.73*     -1.88      -3.14*     -3.01*     -1.19      -1.93*
                    (1.34)     (1.15)     (0.76)     (0.81)     (1.13)     (0.95) 

Floods in dist~t     -0.95      -0.52      -0.75      -0.60       2.25       2.41 
                    (1.32)     (1.18)     (1.15)     (1.16)     (1.60)     (1.63) 

Incumbent             0.00       1.06       0.00       0.92       0.00       0.00 
                       (.)     (1.43)        (.)     (1.37)        (.)        (.) 

No. of leg. pe~s      0.67       0.01       0.58       0.09       0.64       0.67 
                    (0.52)     (0.50)     (0.45)     (0.45)     (0.51)     (0.49) 

Local interest~e      1.34       1.37       0.90       1.06       1.54       1.37 
                    (0.91)     (0.91)     (0.84)     (0.85)     (1.13)     (1.03) 

Cabinet member        1.37       1.76       2.07       2.63       1.93       2.58 
                    (2.71)     (2.47)     (2.67)     (2.50)     (2.33)     (2.44) 

Regional party~r      0.55       2.68       1.25       3.16       0.51       0.75 
                    (2.43)     (1.81)     (2.16)     (1.61)     (2.54)     (2.20) 

Party function~y      1.36       3.34       0.82       2.86       1.48       1.44 
                    (3.68)     (3.24)     (3.47)     (3.15)     (2.73)     (2.85) 

Scandal opposi~      -1.29      -2.36      -1.39      -2.72*     -0.01      -0.27 
                    (2.09)     (1.25)     (1.88)     (1.22)     (1.69)     (1.54) 

Opp. party lea~t      1.20      -1.31       1.78      -1.06       0.03       0.75 
                    (2.39)     (1.29)     (1.70)     (1.38)     (2.44)     (2.04) 

Female               -1.22      -0.33      -1.00      -0.36      -0.46      -0.51 
                    (1.30)     (1.05)     (1.18)     (1.01)     (1.47)     (1.43) 

Academic titel        1.19       0.09       1.17       0.06      -0.02      -0.23 
                    (1.46)     (1.19)     (1.38)     (1.13)     (1.47)     (1.39) 

Age                  -0.12      -0.01      -0.11      -0.01      -0.08      -0.08 
                    (0.07)     (0.06)     (0.07)     (0.06)     (0.07)     (0.07) 

District level~e     -7.19       2.32      -7.59       2.38      -2.11      -2.75 
                   (33.81)    (23.30)    (33.88)    (23.32)    (33.82)    (34.04) 

OLPR ballot Ni~n      5.58*      5.03*      6.27*      5.85*                      
                    (2.56)     (1.89)     (2.38)     (1.86)                       

OLPR ballot Ob~n     -1.42      -0.20      -1.30       0.00                       
                    (1.16)     (1.02)     (1.18)     (1.00)                       

OLPR ballot Ob~n     -0.52       0.34      -0.33       0.61                       
                    (1.59)     (1.29)     (1.50)     (1.22)                       

OLPR ballot Ob~z      2.41       0.42       1.70       0.37                       
                    (1.53)     (1.96)     (1.19)     (1.73)                       

OLPR ballot Sc~n      0.85       1.52       1.30       2.01                       
                    (1.60)     (1.10)     (1.40)     (1.03)                       

OLPR ballot Un~n     -1.36      -1.44      -1.12      -1.06                       
                    (1.92)     (1.36)     (1.69)     (1.16)                       

Constant              4.17      -3.57       3.68      -3.71       0.62       0.29 
                    (6.66)     (5.23)     (6.64)     (5.18)     (6.61)     (6.69) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations            59         90         59         90         59         59 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: regression on 2013 difference in first and second vote shares of CSU in districts
>  with robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample draws on 2013 incumbents only for
>  Model 1 and 3. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2) or continuous (Models
>  3, 4). We observe 14 districts with running affair MPs. Control variables for candid
> ate quality include CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet member, regional
>  party leader, leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair
>  of opposition candidate, major damage of 2013 June flood in district, age (in years)
> , dummies for female, academic title and a measure for district level aggregate indif
> ference. Regressions as well include dummies for the OLPR districts (regions) in Bava
> ria.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A9: Robustness Results of Table 1 - Effects of Scandal Involv
> ement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares - Leave-one-out analysis on Model 1 of Ta
> ble 1
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. 
. global c = "population employment_share immigrant_share influx  buildings farmers pc_
> tax pc_debt" // candidate level controls

. global g = "incumbency leg local_committee kabinett bezirksvorsitz01 parteiamt affair
> _noncsu opp_leader danube13" // district level controls

. 
. *binary treatment, column 2 of Table A9
. 
. eststo clear

. 
. foreach v in 105 108 201 207 303  306  307  401  403  405  406  507  511  512  603  6
> 07  608  704  705  706  708  710  713  {
  2. eststo without`v': quietly xtreg csu_fv affair i.year##i.region2 $c $g danube13 i.
> year if year>=2008 & nr!=`v', fe cluster(nr)
  3. }

. 
. esttab, keep(affair) se nostar // thanks to Ben Jann: http://www.stata.com/statalist/
> archive/2009-01/msg01084.html

{hline 311}
                      (1)          (2)          (3)          (4)          (5)          
> (6)          (7)          (8)          (9)         (10)         (11)         (12)    
>      (13)         (14)         (15)         (16)         (17)         (18)         (1
> 9)         (20)         (21)         (22)         (23)
                   csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu
> _fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv    
>    csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_
> fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv
{hline 311}
affair             -2.849       -2.656       -2.730       -2.689       -2.808       -2.
> 910       -2.928       -2.846       -2.737       -2.430       -2.163       -2.602    
>    -2.735       -2.788       -2.764       -2.862       -2.679       -1.996       -2.6
> 43       -2.524       -2.643       -2.895       -2.480
                  (1.191)      (1.139)      (1.151)      (1.122)      (1.146)      (1.1
> 26)      (1.147)      (1.176)      (1.145)      (1.131)      (1.090)      (1.157)    
>   (1.138)      (1.144)      (1.134)      (1.194)      (1.128)      (0.960)      (1.18
> 2)      (1.121)      (1.146)      (1.202)      (1.187)
{hline 311}
N                     178          178          178          178          178          
> 178          178          178          178          178          178          178    
>       178          178          178          178          178          178          1
> 78          178          178          178          178
{hline 311}
Standard errors in parentheses

. matrix C = r(coefs)

. eststo clear

. local rnames : rownames C

. local models : coleq C

. local models : list uniq models

. local i 0

. foreach name of local rnames {
  2.     local ++i
  3.     local j 0
  4.     capture matrix drop b
  5.     capture matrix drop se
  6.     foreach model of local models {
  7.         local ++j
  8.         matrix tmp = C[`i', 2*`j'-1]
  9.         if tmp[1,1]<. {
 10.             matrix colnames tmp = `model'
 11.             matrix b = nullmat(b), tmp
 12.             matrix tmp[1,1] = C[`i', 2*`j']
 13.             matrix se = nullmat(se), tmp
 14.         }
 15.     }
 16.     ereturn post b
 17.     quietly estadd matrix se
 18.     eststo `name'
 19. }

. 
. esttab, compress b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05)   ///
> title({\b Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Share
> s - Leave-on-out analysis on Model 1 of Table X}) ///
> note("Note: Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust s
> tandard errors, clustered by district in parentheses. The treatment indicator is bina
> ry. The reported coefficients are treatment effects, each estimated from a different 
> regression as indicated in the heading, dropping the district named in the respective
>  row out of the analysis. N = 178 in all cases.") ///
> collabels("First vote",lhs(Dep. var.: CSU vote shares))

{\b Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares - Leav
> e-on-out analysis on Model 1 of Table X}
---------------------
                 (1) 
                     
Dep. var~s First v~e 
---------------------
without105     -2.85*
              (1.19) 

without108     -2.66*
              (1.14) 

without201     -2.73*
              (1.15) 

without207     -2.69*
              (1.12) 

without303     -2.81*
              (1.15) 

without306     -2.91*
              (1.13) 

without307     -2.93*
              (1.15) 

without401     -2.85*
              (1.18) 

without403     -2.74*
              (1.14) 

without405     -2.43*
              (1.13) 

without406     -2.16*
              (1.09) 

without507     -2.60*
              (1.16) 

without511     -2.73*
              (1.14) 

without512     -2.79*
              (1.14) 

without603     -2.76*
              (1.13) 

without607     -2.86*
              (1.19) 

without608     -2.68*
              (1.13) 

without704     -2.00*
              (0.96) 

without705     -2.64*
              (1.18) 

without706     -2.52*
              (1.12) 

without708     -2.64*
              (1.15) 

without710     -2.90*
              (1.20) 

without713     -2.48*
              (1.19) 
---------------------
N                    
---------------------
Note: Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standard 
> errors, clustered by district in parentheses. The treatment indicator is binary. The 
> reported coefficients are treatment effects, each estimated from a different regressi
> on as indicated in the heading, dropping the district named in the respective row out
>  of the analysis. N = 178 in all cases.
* p<0.05

. 
. *cont. treatment, column 2 of Table A9
. eststo clear

. foreach v in 105 108 201 207 303  306  307  401  403  405  406  507  511  512  603  6
> 07  608  704  705  706  708  710  713  {
  2. eststo without`v': quietly xtreg csu_fv affair_cont i.year##i.region2 $c $g danube
> 13 i.year if year>=2008 & nr!=`v', fe cluster(nr)
  3. }

. 
. esttab, keep(affair_cont) se nostar // thanks to Ben Jann: http://www.stata.com/stata
> list/archive/2009-01/msg01084.html

{hline 311}
                      (1)          (2)          (3)          (4)          (5)          
> (6)          (7)          (8)          (9)         (10)         (11)         (12)    
>      (13)         (14)         (15)         (16)         (17)         (18)         (1
> 9)         (20)         (21)         (22)         (23)
                   csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu
> _fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv    
>    csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_
> fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv       csu_fv
{hline 311}
affair_cont        -3.374       -3.375       -3.461       -3.567       -3.356       -3.
> 323       -3.354       -3.358       -3.372       -3.220       -2.993       -3.413    
>    -3.391       -3.360       -3.350       -3.362       -3.460       -2.498       -3.4
> 54       -4.637       -3.360       -3.361       -3.314
                  (1.009)      (1.028)      (1.056)      (1.029)      (1.009)      (1.0
> 00)      (1.012)      (0.997)      (1.008)      (1.007)      (1.070)      (0.996)    
>   (1.010)      (1.009)      (1.016)      (1.003)      (1.053)      (0.711)      (0.98
> 7)      (1.315)      (0.996)      (1.002)      (1.117)
{hline 311}
N                     178          178          178          178          178          
> 178          178          178          178          178          178          178    
>       178          178          178          178          178          178          1
> 78          178          178          178          178
{hline 311}
Standard errors in parentheses

. matrix C = r(coefs)

. eststo clear

. local rnames : rownames C

. local models : coleq C

. local models : list uniq models

. local i 0

. foreach name of local rnames {
  2.     local ++i
  3.     local j 0
  4.     capture matrix drop b
  5.     capture matrix drop se
  6.     foreach model of local models {
  7.         local ++j
  8.         matrix tmp = C[`i', 2*`j'-1]
  9.         if tmp[1,1]<. {
 10.             matrix colnames tmp = `model'
 11.             matrix b = nullmat(b), tmp
 12.             matrix tmp[1,1] = C[`i', 2*`j']
 13.             matrix se = nullmat(se), tmp
 14.         }
 15.     }
 16.     ereturn post b
 17.     quietly estadd matrix se
 18.     eststo `name'
 19. }

. esttab, compress b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05)   ///
> title("Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares -
>  Leave-on-out analysis on Model 2 of Table X") ///
> note("Note: Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust s
> tandard errors, clustered by district in parentheses. The treatment indicator is cont
> inouus. Each regression (horizontally) leaves the indicated treated district out of t
> he analysis. N = 178 in all cases.") ///
> collabels("First vote",lhs(Dep. var.: CSU vote shares))

Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the Trend in CSU First Vote Shares - Leave-on
> -out analysis on Model 2 of Table X
---------------------
                 (1) 
                     
Dep. var~s First v~e 
---------------------
without105     -3.37*
              (1.01) 

without108     -3.38*
              (1.03) 

without201     -3.46*
              (1.06) 

without207     -3.57*
              (1.03) 

without303     -3.36*
              (1.01) 

without306     -3.32*
              (1.00) 

without307     -3.35*
              (1.01) 

without401     -3.36*
              (1.00) 

without403     -3.37*
              (1.01) 

without405     -3.22*
              (1.01) 

without406     -2.99*
              (1.07) 

without507     -3.41*
              (1.00) 

without511     -3.39*
              (1.01) 

without512     -3.36*
              (1.01) 

without603     -3.35*
              (1.02) 

without607     -3.36*
              (1.00) 

without608     -3.46*
              (1.05) 

without704     -2.50*
              (0.71) 

without705     -3.45*
              (0.99) 

without706     -4.64*
              (1.32) 

without708     -3.36*
              (1.00) 

without710     -3.36*
              (1.00) 

without713     -3.31*
              (1.12) 
---------------------
N                    
---------------------
Note: Fixed-effects regression on 2008-2013 CSU first vote shares with robust standard 
> errors, clustered by district in parentheses. The treatment indicator is continouus. 
> Each regression (horizontally) leaves the indicated treated district out of the analy
> sis. N = 178 in all cases.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. 
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *Online Appendix: Table A10: Robustness of Table 3 - Impact of Affair on Ranking of C
> andidates within CSU Party Lists
. *************************************************************************************
> ***********************************
. *diff-in-tiers, diff-in-diff 
. 
. global h = "danube13 local_committee kabinett bezirksvorsitz01 parteiamt affair_noncs
> u opp_leader"

. 
. eststo clear

. 
. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run incumbency $h i.year##i.region if year>=2
> 008 & inc2 == 1, fe cluster(nr)

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run incumbency $h i.year##i.region  if year>=
> 2008 , fe cluster(nr)

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run_cont incumbency $h i.year##i.region if ye
> ar>=2008 & inc2 == 1, fe cluster(nr)

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run_cont incumbency $h i.year##i.region  if y
> ear>=2008 , fe cluster(nr)

. 
. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run i.year##i.region if year>=2008 & inc2 == 
> 1, fe cluster(nr)

. quietly eststo: xtreg diff_tiers affair_run_cont i.year##i.region if year>=2008 & inc
> 2 == 1, fe cluster(nr)

.  
. esttab, b(2) se(2) star(* 0.05) label compress drop(?.region 2008.year* 2013.year*1.r
> egion) order(affair_run 2013.year incumbency  $h  *region* *year* )  ///
> rename(affair_run_cont affair_run) /// 
> title({\b Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2008-2013 Trend in Difference
> s of CSU First and Second Vote Shares}) ///
> note("Note: Fixed-effects regression on CSU difference in first and second vote share
> s for the 2008-2013 period with robust standard errors, clustered by district, in par
> entheses. Sample draws on district incumbents in 2013 that ran as well in 2008 beside
> s Models 2 and 4. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2, 5) or continuous (M
> odels 3, 4, 6). We observe 14 districts with running �affair� MPs in 2013; one �affai
> r� MP changed district and is therefore not contained in Models 1, 2, 5 (sample of 20
> 13 district incumbents that ran as well in 2008). Control variables for candidate qua
> lity include CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet member, regional party 
> leader, leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of opp
> osition candidate and major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions as wel
> l allow for trends for the OLPR districts (regions) in Bavaria.") ///
> mtitles("binary treat." "binary treat." "cont. treat." "cont. treat." "binary treat."
>  "cont. treat.") ///
> collabels("Diff-in-Diff-in-tiers",lhs(Dep. var.: Diff. in CSU first and second vote s
> h.))

{\b Table : Effects of Scandal Involvement on the 2008-2013 Trend in Differences of CSU
>  First and Second Vote Shares}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       (1)        (2)        (3)        (4)        (5)        (6) 
                      bi..       bi..  co.. tr~.  co.. tr~.       bi..  co.. tr~. 
Dep. var.: Dif~e Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s  Diff-in~s 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running CSU~2013     -2.74*     -2.15      -3.57*     -3.11*     -1.00      -1.60 
                    (1.34)     (1.22)     (1.06)     (1.01)     (1.18)     (1.29) 

Year=2013             2.24*      1.87*      2.27*      1.86*      2.36*      2.36*
                    (0.99)     (0.75)     (0.98)     (0.74)     (0.91)     (0.91) 

Incumbent            -1.47       0.08      -1.47      -0.02                       
                    (1.17)     (0.46)     (1.17)     (0.44)                       

Floods in dist~t     -2.73      -1.95      -2.51      -2.15                       
                    (1.60)     (1.14)     (1.58)     (1.15)                       

Local interest~e      0.73       0.99       0.58       0.84                       
                    (0.67)     (0.60)     (0.67)     (0.56)                       

Cabinet member        0.84       2.38*      1.66       2.79*                      
                    (1.22)     (0.86)     (0.97)     (0.80)                       

Regional party~r      0.96       1.41       1.42       1.99*                      
                    (1.00)     (0.88)     (1.13)     (0.98)                       

Party function~y      4.57*      4.11*      4.42*      4.17*                      
                    (0.71)     (1.18)     (0.99)     (1.21)                       

Scandal opposi~      -1.45      -1.22      -1.54      -1.45                       
                    (1.43)     (0.79)     (1.12)     (0.88)                       

Opp. party lea~t      0.90      -2.97*      1.97      -2.70*                      
                    (1.51)     (0.68)     (1.76)     (0.87)                       

Year=2013 # OL~a      6.14*      4.45*      6.55*      5.18*      2.34       2.73 
                    (2.16)     (1.60)     (2.25)     (1.72)     (1.56)     (1.65) 

Year=2013 # OL~e     -3.39*     -3.75*     -3.62*     -3.67*     -5.13*     -5.12*
                    (1.57)     (0.93)     (1.51)     (0.91)     (1.24)     (1.23) 

Year=2013 # OL~n     -3.66*     -4.16*     -3.63*     -4.09*     -5.08*     -5.03*
                    (1.77)     (1.33)     (1.47)     (1.17)     (1.87)     (1.69) 

Year=2013 # OL~l      2.51       0.30       1.38      -0.08      -0.28      -0.67 
                    (1.92)     (1.09)     (1.74)     (1.02)     (1.37)     (1.25) 

Year=2013 # OL~n     -1.44      -1.01      -1.38      -0.76      -2.13      -1.92 
                    (1.99)     (1.20)     (1.52)     (1.07)     (1.59)     (1.43) 

Year=2013 # OL~a     -1.63      -2.20*     -1.70      -2.10*     -2.62*     -2.49 
                    (1.35)     (0.98)     (1.54)     (0.99)     (1.23)     (1.32) 

Constant             -0.74      -2.48*     -0.84      -2.47*     -1.28*     -1.28*
                    (0.75)     (0.35)     (0.78)     (0.35)     (0.21)     (0.21) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations           110        180        110        180        110        110 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fixed-effects regression on CSU difference in first and second vote shares for th
> e 2008-2013 period with robust standard errors, clustered by district, in parentheses
> . Sample draws on district incumbents in 2013 that ran as well in 2008 besides Models
>  2 and 4. The treatment indicator is binary (Models 1, 2, 5) or continuous (Models 3,
>  4, 6). We observe 14 districts with running �affair� MPs in 2013; one �affair� MP ch
> anged district and is therefore not contained in Models 1, 2, 5 (sample of 2013 distr
> ict incumbents that ran as well in 2008). Control variables for candidate quality inc
> lude CSU candidate member of local committee, cabinet member, regional party leader, 
> leading party functionary, opposition party leader in district, affair of opposition 
> candidate and major damage of 2013 June flood in district. Regressions as well allow 
> for trends for the OLPR districts (regions) in Bavaria.
* p<0.05

. 
. 
. *********************************************
. *END
. *********************************************
. 
. log close
      name:  <unnamed>
       log:  C:\Dropbox\bavarian affair\merged data\replication\tables\replication_SMD.
> log
  log type:  text
 closed on:  20 Nov 2015, 19:24:40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
